I have a followup to the response below concerning scaling the PEs to
account for the amplitude of the columns in the design.mat.
Namely, if FILM has run correction for auto-correlations, then isn't
there technically a different design matrix for every voxel? So wouldn't
the PE corrections would need to be voxel-wise? But there is only one
design.mat written out, implying global auto-correlation correction.
What is the right way to re-scale the PEs?
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 01:26:31 +0000, Stephen Smith
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi - in order to interpret the absolute size of estimated PE values, you
>need to first multiply them by the peak-to-peak height in the model
>look inside design.mat) - after doing this, regardless of the
>type, you know the fitted peak-to-peak height. In none of this, at this
>point, are things normalised into percentages (etc.).
>On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Ramapriyan Pratiwadi wrote:
>> We recently ran an analysis using the FIR basis set, rather than
>> double-gamma HRF. To our surpise, the range of values for the
>> were much much lower than expected; in fact, they look like
>> signal change. And when the betas for the basis set were
>> indeed looked like a typical HRF.
>> Do the pe images need to be scaled in some way, or are they
>> percent deviation from baseline.
>> Ram Pratiwadi
>> Research Assistant
>> University of Pennsylvania, Brain Behavior Laboratory
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>> MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
> Stephen M. Smith DPhil
> Associate Director, FMRIB and Analysis Research Coordinator
> Oxford University Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain
> John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
> +44 (0) 1865 222726 (fax 222717)
> [log in to unmask] http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~steve